Second post doesn't count and they have to post again. Which might mean they get knocked down the list more spaces if more people post in between. But absolutely NO editing or deleting posts even if they are simulposts.Dongobloyodobronomoyolosloyoroyo!

Hmm... no, we need a happy medium. Let's first consider how serious an offense it truly is... what advantage could actually be gained if an edit or deletion were done in a cheating way..? If you edit it, to change your pick, perhaps because you were second in a simulpost or some other duplicate situation, that wouldn't give you any advantage, because I would throw out the pick for being edited anyway. But maybe if you made one pick, then due to someone else's pick at some later point, you decided you wanted a different pick, so you deleted that pick and appended your new pick afterwards... I can't figure how exactly that would be to your advantage.... but it's not something we want to happen for sure. Well, really, come to think of it, I do see how that technique could be used to your advantage. You could get in real quick with the best pick you can see right away (maybe you came in in the middle of a round), then take a better look at it, and if you find something better, delete the post and append your "better" pick at the end of the list. Then of course, "Oh, yeah, that deleted post, it was just an accident, I thought I was in a different thread and I posted a comment that has nothing to do with this contest, so yeah I deleted it because it was irrelevant to this thread."

So yeah, it is a serious offense. Now as for the consequence... I was going to say you're just moved to the last pick for that round... but then it could get confusing, and even multiple people could commit it, and then it would get weirder. So I'm gonna go a little harsher, how about this: If anyone has a edited or deleted post in a round, they get no pick that round.

Another issue though, if we only do 5 rounds, and there are only 24 people, that's only 120 out of 144 even if everyone gets on and picks in every single round. Should we split the rounds shorter, or add more players (which might not even be possible, depending upon how many we can get to play), OR... just not worry about unpicked squares. If some squares go unpicked, well those squares just go to no one. But then there are possibilities for no winner. Maybe there could be a system to determine the "best square" in such an event. Like this: as long as there is one or more of the 4 correct Super Bowl matchup squares that are picked, then the most accurate one wins. If NONE of those squares are correct, then next is the 4 squares that are the team that actually won the Super Bowl, versus the runner-up in the other conference. If none of those is picked, then next is the 4 squares that involve the Super Bowl loser vs. the runner-up from the other conference, then followed by the 4 matchups of NFC runner-up vs. AFC runner-up. Getting complicated, but gotta have all bases covered just in case something wacky happens.Dongobloyodobronomoyolosloyoroyo!

I agree. The punishment can't be just an angry face. The no vote that round makes sense, although it IS a bit harsh. The rules need to be clearly explained before hand, so everyone knows the consequences. That way, nobody can claim 'oh I didn't know!'

For the only 120 squares thingy, I think it could be solved if you could fit a 6th round in somewhere. OR you could randomly assign everyone one last tile before it starts. Yeah, that would work. Or, for the edit/delete, you could make them wait until the end for thier pick of the square. That way, only the bad ones are left for them. And all of the squares will be filled up, so we don't have to worry about the square not being picked.Also, I lit your fridge on fire. It was upsetting me.

I suppose, but still, not everyone is likely going to come online everyday to pick? So for the people who don't pick in, say, Round 3, maybe they can throw in an extra pick in Round 4, in other words, their 3rd rounder gets downgraded to a 4th rounder. And anyone who is still missing picks at the very end gets their picks filled out randomly.Dongobloyodobronomoyolosloyoroyo!

Yes, that would work. Everyone needs to have 6 picks (assuming there is going to be 24 people) for this to work.

Also: what if we don't get 24 people? What if we only get 11, and nobody else wants to join? Do we just distribute the squares to other people? But if it was an odd number like 11, people wouldn't get an even amount of squares apiece. In that case, the board wouldn't be filled, and the closest-to-the-square rule would have to be used.Also, I lit your fridge on fire. It was upsetting me.

Having uneven distribution of squares (like with 11 people) is not a big issue generally, because only the last round is the extra that some players get, and the last picks are mostly worthless. (Anything CAN happen, but the last picks are very unlikely.)

I've done the real-life contest for 3 years. Just for example:
First year: 15 people, 10 rounds, 9 people got an extra pick at the end
Second year: 18 people, 8 rounds, worked out even
Third year: 22 people, 7 rounds, 12 people got an extra pick.Dongobloyodobronomoyolosloyoroyo!